Kabwe v. Garland

20-2799 Kabwe v. Garland UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 2nd day of August, two thousand twenty-three. 4 5 PRESENT: Steven J. Menashi, 6 Myrna Pérez, 7 Alison J. Nathan, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ____________________________________________ 10 NATHAN BANZA KABWE, 11 Petitioner, 12 v. No. 20-2799 13 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 14 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 15 Respondent. 16 ____________________________________________ 17 For Petitioner: Robert F. Graziano, Tonawanda, N.Y. 1 For Respondent: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Liza S. Murcia, Senior 3 Litigation Counsel; Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial 4 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 United States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. Petitioner Nathan Banza Kabwe, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”), seeks review of a July 27, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a June 6, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Nathan Banza Kabwe, No. A206 718 102 (B.I.A. July 27, 2020), aff’g No. A206 718 102 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. June 6, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Accordingly, we review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and must defer to the factfinder’s findings based on such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. . . . By contrast, we review legal conclusions de novo.” Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent past persecution, an asylum applicant may establish eligibility by demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); Kyaw Zwar Tun v. INS, 445 F.3d 554, 564 (2d …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals